In memory of our brother and son, Robert Bagnell,
who died moments after being tasered by police in Vancouver, British Columbia on June 23, 2004. Bob was the 7th Canadian to die and the 110th in North America.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

The Saskatchewan Police Commission is wrapping up consultations and will soon turn to making a decision on whether front-line police officers will be allowed to carry Tasers.

Commission chairman Paul Korpan said in an interview this week that discussions with two remaining organizations should be completed by the end of May or early June.

Korpan stressed that a decision will only be made by the commission after due deliberation. He said allowing Tasers for front-line officers is not a done deal.

However, there have been no objections raised during consultations to equipping police with conducted energy devices, said the Regina lawyer, but organizations want to ensure there are strict guidelines for their use.

"If it's allowed, that is the next question or part of the question. And I think the two questions have to be determined together," said Korpan.

Under the current rules set by the police commission - an independent provincial body that oversees regulations and standards for municipal police - Tasers currently can only be utilized by members of special weapons and tactical teams.

Municipal police services in the province have called for front-line officers to be equipped with the weapons. Saskatoon police Chief Clive Weighill has suggested in the past their use would be restricted to situations such as those that would involve the threat of imminent physical harm.

In July 2008, the police commission reversed an earlier decision to allow Tasers for general use by police, citing a need for more information.

It began a new review in February 2009 and at one point a decision was expected in 2010.

Korpan said the longer timeframe was needed because of the commission's desire to be thorough in its consultations.

The commission did not take input directly from the public but did go to police, civil liberties, mental health and aboriginal organizations, and government bodies such as the children's advocate for feedback.

QUEENSLAND police are moving to double their Taser armoury after quietly lifting a freeze on the rollout of the stun guns following the 2009 death of a man who was shot up to 28 times with the 50,000-volt device.

More than 1000 new Tasers have been ordered by Queensland police, which will today receive a landmark Crime and Misconduct Commission report on the overhaul of training and policy on the use of the stun guns.

The report -- to be tabled in state parliament -- is understood to call for tough controls on the use of the guns in the face of mounting evidence the weapons are being used by police as an everyday compliance tool and not as a non-lethal substitute for a standard gun in high-risk situations.

Data has been gleaned from each of the existing 1400 stun guns in use and will serve as a baseline to be compared in a future review after more operational changes are introduced in line with the CMC report's recommendations.

Moves to trial alternative stun guns -- including the emerging "Stinger" semi-automatic stun gun -- were abandoned last year after a police trial.

Queensland police confirmed last night that the new guns were expected to be delivered in several weeks. A spokesman said officers were now better trained and had a stricter policy governing the use of the stun guns following a joint police-CMC review.

"This policy ensures a high level of scrutiny is applied to all deployments and review processes are established to address identified trends," the spokesman said.

"The ratio of officers now trained in the use of a Taser compared to the number of weapons available has steadily increased due to the continued suspension of the weapon rollout.

"The QPS has recently placed an order to purchase further Tasers.

"This is to ensure all Taser-qualified officers are able to be equipped with the devices as any unavailability is considered to be an unacceptable risk to the community and Queensland police officers."

A coroner's inquest is continuing into the death of Antonio Galeano, 39, who was repeatedly tasered after he confronted police with a steel bar at his unit in Brandon, south of Townsville.

Police initially told the media he had been shot several times, but an investigation by The Australian revealed the data from the gun showed he had been tasered up to 28 times.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Taser International Inc. is preparing to launch a new stun gun, the X2, this week.

The company will make the announcement on the product, said to be about the size of its current X26 device, on Wednesday morning.

Officials with Scottsdale-based Taser (Nasdaq: TASR) said the device was the result of consulting with its customers about what they were seeking in a stun gun.

“Thousands of officers participated in the design of the X2 through online surveys, interviews, and focus groups,” said Rick Smith, founder and CEO of Taser, in a statement. “The result is a breakthrough device that integrates key features into a simple, compact design optimized for full-time carry. We look forward to sharing the X2 with the world this Wednesday.”

Taser has been rolling out various new products over the past 18 months with mixed results. It is starting to see some traction with its Axon system that acts as a recording device for law enforcement, but its X3, a three-shot stun gun, has yet to see large orders.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

A supervisor from the River Edge mental health facility reported the 38-year-old man, described as standing 6 feet 4 inches tall and weighing more than 350 pounds, became violent while the mental health worker was checking on him.

When an officer tried to assist the health worker, the patient struck the officer in the left hand with a broom and started to threaten with a razor.

Patient became even more agitated when he saw an officer approaching with a taser, but luckily his associate retrieved a handful of lollipops from his patrol car and convinced the patient to trade the lollipops for the razor and to allow officers to handcuff him.

Friday, April 22, 2011

The Police Executive Research Forum's 2005 guidelines were well-intentioned, but became contentious in litigation.

Back in 2005, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) published a set of TASER guidelines (then referred to as “Conducted Energy Devices,” or CEDs). Those guidelines were well-intentioned, but very contentious. Some of the 2005 guidelines recommended against CED use when it was called for, and encouraged CED use in situations where it was not. In litigation, the guidelines were quite contentious.

Since that time, years of TASER experience, updated medical research, and numerous court cases have resulted in broader knowledge about TASERs. Even after all that, TASER use is still a developing and controversial area among researchers, practitioners, the public, and the courts.

The 2005 PERF guidelines were badly in need of updating, and that has finally occurred following a meeting in Philadelphia last summer of police chiefs, medical experts, use-of-force experts, industry representatives, and others.

This morning (as this is written on April 8, 2011), PERF’s “2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines,” were published in conjunction with the COPS office (i.e. the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice). In my opinion, the 2011 guidelines are a vast improvement.

[Full disclosure: I was one of many people who worked on the guidelines at the Philadelphia meeting and in subsequent editing sessions with PERF.]

From the document’s introductory material:

Since 2005, researchers have continued to conduct studies of ECWs, and thousands of police departments have gained real-world experience with them. As a result, the COPS Office asked PERF to update the 2005 guidelines, reflecting these developments. PERF conducted background research, including a survey of nearly 200 law enforcement agencies regarding ECW deployments, as well as interviews of police chiefs and other experts. PERF and the COPS Office then convened a conference in Philadelphia in August 2010 where 150 police executives, researchers, doctors, attorneys, and others discussed the use of ECWs in light of five years’ worth of experience in the field.

This publication is the result of those efforts, providing an updated and improved version of the initial guidelines to reflect the state of the field regarding ECWs. The 2011 guidelines also reflect a general consensus in policing that ECWs play an invaluable role in providing officers with another type of less-lethal weapon that can be effective in many situations, but they should not be seen as an all-purpose weapon that takes the place of de-escalation techniques and other options. In addition, ECWs have limitations, so officers must be prepared to switch to other strategies if an ECW is not producing the desired result.

Obviously, ECWs are a subject of wide interest to law enforcement since so many thousands of agencies use TASERs. Policy makers and trainers would benefit from reviewing the guidelines and analyzing their own policies and training protocols.

Not everyone will be satisfied with the guidelines, of course, and the ECW subject will remain somewhat contentious as we move forward. The courts in particular are still trying to sort out TASER issues, and that effort will continue for years as unique cases rise through the system. Still, if you lay the 2005 and the 2011 versions of the PERF guidelines side-by-side, I think it is obvious that significant improvement has occurred.

The 2011 guidelines document also contains a listing of selected medical research and legal that are pertinent to ECWs, as well as a listing of the participants at the Philadelphia meeting where the guidelines revision process began.

My personal view is that the 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines document from PERF and COPS is a good step forward in the history of these valuable tools which have saved many lives and prevented many injuries.

Here are the new Guidelines and the related Glossary of terms, and a link to the complete document. For some of the guidelines I have made personal comments [in brackets immediately below the relevant guideline].

Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (PERF 2011) Agency Policy

1. Agency personnel must always consider the totality of the circumstances when applying the guidelines. In certain situations, exigent circumstances may outweigh the recommendation of a specific guideline. Personnel should always be able to articulate the justification for going beyond agency policy or training.

2. Agencies should develop policies and training curricula for ECWs that are integrated with the agency’s overall use-of-force policy.

3. Agencies should work to share and disseminate information regarding their respective ECW policies and training to foster better cooperation and coordination during joint law enforcement responses or operations. When possible, agencies should enter into a memorandum of understanding to develop joint ECW policies, protocols, and training.

[Comment: Guideline 3 is particularly applicable to small agencies that routinely depend upon mutual aid from adjoining agencies.]

4. Agencies should consult with local medical personnel to develop appropriate police-medical protocols for medical evaluation and removal of ECW probes following subjects’ exposure to ECW application.

5. Agencies should consider adopting brightly colored ECWs (e.g., yellow), which may reduce the risk of escalating a force situation because they are plainly visible and thus decrease the possibility that a secondary unit will mistake the ECW for a firearm. (Note: Specialized units [e.g., SWAT units] may prefer dark-colored ECWs for tactical concealment purposes.)

6. Personnel should keep ECWs in a weak-side holster and should train to perform a weak-hand draw or cross-draw to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and/or firing a sidearm. Transitioning the ECW to the strong hand after drawing with the weak hand should be allowed.

[Comment: Dr. Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Research Center and I continue to suggest weak-side holsters and weak-hand draws. We concur that transition to the strong hand after the draw would be fine. We do NOT support strong-hand cross-draw of the TASER. Of the 9 known cases (so far) of accidentally drawing and shooting a firearm when TASER was intended, ALL of them involved strong-hand draws, and some of those (including the infamous Oakland BART case, where an officer was tried for murder and convicted of involuntary manslaughter last year) involved weapons confusion even though the TASER placement was strong-hand cross-draw. You can read more about such cases in my earlier BART articles and in the articles archive at Dr. Lewinski’s website, www.forcescience.org ]

7. If agencies permit personnel to use privately owned ECWs on duty, policy should dictate specifications, regulations, qualifications, etc. The privately owned ECWs should be registered with the agency.

Training 8. Before any agency personnel (e.g., officers, jail personnel, auxiliary/reserve officers, civilian staff) are armed with ECWs, they should receive all mandated training and achieve all qualification requirements.

9. Agencies should use scenario- and judgment-based training that recognizes the limitations of ECW application and the need for personnel to be prepared to transition to other force options as needed.

10. Agencies should not rely solely on training curriculum provided by an ECW manufacturer. When they do use the curriculum, agencies should ensure the manufacturer’s training does not contradict agency use-of-force policies and values. Agencies should ensure that their ECW curricula are integrated into their overall use-of-force training curriculum.

11. Agencies should be aware that exposure to ECW application during training could result in injury to personnel and is not recommended. Any agency that does include ECW application as part of training should not make it mandatory for certification, and should ensure that safety protocols are rigorously followed.

12. ECW recertification should occur at least annually and should consist of physical competency and weapon retention, agency policy including any changes, technology changes, and reviews of local and national trends in ECW use. Recertification should also include scenario-based training.

13. Personnel should be trained to use an ECW for one standard cycle (five seconds) and then evaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Training protocols should emphasize that multiple applications or continuous cycling of an ECW resulting in an exposure longer than 15 seconds (whether continuous or cumulative) may increase the risk of serious injury or death and should be avoided.

14. Training protocols should emphasize the risk of positional asphyxia, and thus officers should be trained to use a restraint technique that does not impair the subject’s respiration following an ECW application.

[Comment: Whether positional or other forms of restraint asphyxia are a cause of arrest-related deaths continues to be a subject of controversy among medical researchers. No matter what tools or tactics are used, arresting officers should attempt to ensure that a subject’s breathing is not compromised.]

15. Personnel should be trained that when a subject is armed with an ECW and attacks or threatens to attack a police officer who is alone, the officer must defend himself or herself or take actions to avoid becoming incapacitated and risking the possibility that the subject could gain control of the officer’s firearm. However, if multiple officers are present, a subject’s attack with an ECW against one officer should not in and of itself cause a deadly-force response by other officers.

[Comment: This critical subject should be included in scenario-based training exercises.]

16. Agencies’ policy and training should discourage the use of the drive stun mode as a pain compliance technique. The drive stun mode should be used only to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between officers and the subject so that officers can consider another force option.

17. Personnel should be trained to attempt hands-on control tactics during ECW application, including handcuffing the subject during ECW application (i.e., handcuffing under power). Training should emphasize that personnel who touch a subject during ECW application will not receive exposure to the electrical charge, so long as caution is taken not to touch the subject along the circuit (i.e., between the locations of the two probes).

18. Command staff, supervisors, and investigators should receive ECW awareness training appropriate to the investigations they conduct and review.

19. If an agency uses more than one model of ECWs, training should emphasize the differences in the various models (e.g., duration of cycle, optimal probe spread).

20. In addition to providing an overview of ECWs, agencies should provide ECW awareness training to personnel who are not certified to carry the devices and emphasize their responsibilities. The training should also cover situations such as attempting to handcuff subjects during ECW application and transitioning to other force options.

Using the ECW 21. Personnel should use an ECW for one standard cycle (five seconds) and then evaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Personnel should consider that exposure to the ECW for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Any subsequent applications should be independently justifiable, and the risks should be weighed against other force options.

22. A warning should be given to a subject prior to activating the ECW unless doing so would place any person at risk. Warnings may be in the form of verbalization, display, laser painting, arcing, or a combination of these tactics.

23. When feasible, an announcement should be made to other personnel on the scene that an ECW is going to be activated.

24. Personnel should not intentionally activate more than one ECW at a time against a subject.

[Comment: There will be occasional high-threat levels where this needs to be done. If the next logical option is to shoot the person, for example, I would argue that if the dynamics of the situation permit, officers might shoot more than one ECW at the subject. See Guideline #1 regarding totality of circumstances.]

25. ECWs should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression or who are actively resisting in a manner that, in the officer’s judgment, is likely to result in injuries to themselves or others. ECWs should not be used against a passive subject. 26. Fleeing should not be the sole justification for using an ECW against a subject. Personnel should consider the severity of the offense, the subject’s threat level to others, and the risk of serious injury to the subject before deciding to use an ECW on a fleeing subject.

27. ECWs should not generally be used against pregnant women, elderly persons, young children, and visibly frail persons. Personnel should evaluate whether the use of the ECW is reasonable, based upon all circumstances, including the subject’s age and physical condition. In some cases, other control techniques may be more appropriate as determined by the subject’s threat level to others.

29. ECWs should not be used on handcuffed subjects unless doing so is necessary to prevent them from causing serious bodily harm to themselves or others and if lesser attempts of control have been ineffective.

30. ECWs should not be used against subjects in physical control of a vehicle in motion (e.g., automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, bicycles, scooters).

31. ECWs should not be used when a subject is in an elevated position where a fall may cause substantial injury or death.

32. ECWs should not be used in the known presence of combustible vapors and liquids or other flammable substances including alcohol-based Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) spray carriers. Agencies utilizing both ECWs and O.C. spray should use a non-combustible (e.g., water-based) spray.

33. ECWs can be effective against aggressive animals. Policies should indicate whether use against animals is permitted.

Medical Considerations 34. Personnel should be aware that there is a higher risk of sudden death in subjects under the influence of drugs and/or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium.

[Comment: Let’s be clear, subjects in excited/agitated delirium are at higher risk of sudden death REGARDLESS of what police tool or tactic is employed, and regardless of whether police are even present.]

35. When possible, emergency medical personnel should be notified when officers respond to calls for service in which they anticipate an ECW application may be used against a subject.

[Comment: Especially with cases of subjects who appear to be in excited/agitated delirium, it is desirable to roll EMT before engaging the subject if tactical circumstances allow. It is also desirable to train dispatchers to recognize the symptoms of excited/agitated delirium (such as the proverbial “naked man” running in the street, shouting irrationally, breaking things, etc.) so that several officers, and supervisor, and EMT personnel can be sent to the scene at the same time. As the Institute for Prevention of In-Custody Death (www.ipicd.com) teaches that “Excited delirium is a medical emergency disguised as a police problem.” The objective is for the police to subdue the violent subject, then the EMTs administer a body-cooling sedative immediately in an effort to prevent an arrest-related death.]

36. All subjects who have been exposed to ECW application should receive a medical evaluation by emergency medical responders in the field or at a medical facility. Subjects who have been exposed to prolonged application (i.e., more than 15 seconds) should be transported to an emergency department for evaluation. Personnel conducting the medical evaluation should be made aware that the suspect has experienced ECW activation, so they can better evaluate the need for further medical treatment.

37. All subjects who have received an ECW application should be monitored regularly while in police custody even if they received medical care. Documentation of the ECW exposure should accompany the subject when transferred to jail personnel or until the subject is released from police custody.

38. ECW probes should be treated as a biohazard. Personnel should not remove ECW probes from a subject that have penetrated the skin unless they have been trained to do so. Only medical personnel should remove probes that have penetrated a subject’s sensitive areas or are difficult to remove.

Reporting and Accountability 39. ECWs should be regulated while personnel are off duty under rules similar to those for service firearms (including storage, transportation, use, etc.).

40. A supervisor should respond to all incident scenes where an ECW was activated. [Comment: Hopefully your agency requires response by a supervisor to ANY reportable use of force, not just ECW.]

41. When possible, supervisors should anticipate on-scene officers’ use of ECWs and should respond to calls for service that have a high propensity for the use of an ECW.

42. A supervisor should conduct an initial review of each ECW activation, and every instance of ECW use, including unintentional activation, should be documented.

43. Agencies should initiate force investigations when any of the following factors is involved:

- A subject experiences a proximity death or serious injury following ECW application - A subject experiences prolonged ECW application (longer than 15 seconds) - The ECW appears to have been used in a punitive or abusive manner - There appears to be a substantial deviation from ECW training or policy - A subject in an at-risk category has been subjected to application (e.g., young children, individuals who are elderly/frail, pregnant women, and any other activation as determined by a supervisor)

[Comment: I believe there was a word left out due to an editing error, and that Guideline 43 should read, “Agencies should initiate enhanced force investigations . . .” for the listed factors. An “enhanced” force investigation ought to occur at higher than the field supervisory level.]

44. Every ECW-related enhanced force investigation (and when possible every preliminary investigation) should include: — Interviews of the subject and all officers who discharged their ECWs — Location and interviews of witnesses (including other officers) — Forensic quality photographs (including a ruler to show distances) of subject and officer injuries — Photographs of cartridges/probes — Collection of ECW cartridges, probes, data downloads, car video, confetti tags — Copies of the ECW data download — Other information as indicated in Reporting and Accountability Guideline #50

45. When reviewing downloaded ECW data, supervisors and investigators should be aware that the total time of activation registered on an ECW may not reflect the actual duration of ECW application on a subject.

[Comment: “Activations do not always equal applications.” This is particularly true of drive stun applications, which tend to have an on-and-off result as the subject and officer moves about; for probe applications, if the subject pulls out a probe, or the probe otherwise becomes dislodged, the computer will register activation time where actual application was not occurring.]

46. ECW activations should be tracked in the agency’s early intervention system (EIS).

47. Agencies should periodically conduct random audits of ECW data downloads and reconcile use-of-force reports with recorded activations. Agencies should take necessary action as appropriate when inconsistencies are detected.

48. Audits should be conducted to verify that all personnel who carry ECWs have attended initial and recertification training.

49. Agencies should collect and analyze information to identify ECW trends. Agencies may include display, laser painting, and arcing of weapons to measure prevention/deterrence effectiveness. Agencies should periodically analyze ECW statistics and make them available to the public.

50. Agencies should collect the following information about ECW use: — Date, time, location of incident — The use of display, laser painting and/or arcing, and whether those tactics deterred a subject and gained compliance — Identifying and descriptive information and investigative statements of the subject (including membership in an at-risk population), all personnel firing ECWs, and all witnesses — The type and brand of ECW used — The number of ECW activations, the duration of each cycle, the duration between activations, and (as best as can be determined) the duration that the subject received applications — Level of aggression encountered — Any weapons possessed by the subject — The type of crime/incident the subject was involved in — Determination of whether deadly force would have been justified — The type of clothing worn by the subject — The range at which the ECW was used — The type of mode used (probe deployment or drive stun) — The point of probe impact on a subject with the device in probe mode — The point of impact on a subject with the device in drive stun mode — Location of missed probe(s) — Terrain and weather conditions during ECW use — Lighting conditions — The type of cartridge used — Suspicion that subject was under the influence of drugs (specify if available) — Medical care provided to the subject — Any injuries incurred by personnel or the subject

Public Information and Community Relations51. Law enforcement agencies should conduct neighborhood programs that focus on ECW awareness training, which should be part of any citizen’s training academy program.

52. Agencies’ public information officers should receive extensive training on ECWs so they can better inform the media and the public about the weapon. Members of the media should be briefed on agencies’ policies and use of ECWs.

53. ECW awareness should extend to law enforcement partners such as local medical personnel, citizen review boards, medical examiners, mental health professionals, judges, and local prosecutors.

Glossary Activation: Pulling the trigger of an ECW, causing arcing or probe discharge.

Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent.

Active resistance: A subject’s physical actions to defeat an officer’s attempt at control and to avoid being taken into custody. Verbal statements alone do not constitute active resistance.

Arcing: Pulling the trigger to activate an ECW without discharging the probes. This may be done as a warning to the subject or to test the ECW prior to deployment (sometimes referred to as a spark test).

Complete the circuit: When there is not adequate spread between probes attached to a subject, or one probe misses the subject or dislodges, the ECW may be used in drive stun mode to incapacitate the subject. This allows for the electrical pulse to travel between the attached probe(s) and the point where the front of the ECW makes contact with the subject. This tactic is sometimes referred to as a three-point contact.

Conducted Energy Device (CED): See Electronic Control Weapon (ECW).

Confetti tags: Small identifying cards expelled from an ECW cartridge when probes are discharged. Each confetti tag contains a serial number unique to the specific cartridge used. Confetti tags are sometimes referred to as Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags.

Cycle: The period during which electrical impulses are emitted from the ECW following activation. In most models, a standard cycle is 5 seconds for each activation. The duration of a cycle may be shortened by turning the ECW off but may be extended in certain models by continuing to pull the trigger.

Display: Drawing and exhibiting the ECW as part of a warning tactic, typically accompanied by appropriate verbalization.

Drive stun: Drive stun mode is possible whether or not the cartridge has been expended or removed from the ECW. (If the cartridge is not removed, the probes will enter the body.) This action requires pulling the trigger and placing the ECW in direct contact with the subject, causing the electric energy to enter the subject directly. Drive stun is frequently used as a non-incapacitating pain compliance technique. It may also be used to incapacitate the subject where at least one probe is attached to the subject’s body and the ECW contact will complete the circuit.

Duration: The aggregate time that the ECW is activated. It is important to note that the duration of activation may differ from the duration of time that a subject is subjected to the electrical impulse from the ECW.

Electronic Control Weapon (ECW). A weapon designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary muscle contractions and override the subject’s voluntary motor responses. Originally called Conducted Energy Device (CED).

Exigent circumstances: Circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt and unusual action is necessary to prevent physical injury to self or others. firing. Discharging ECW probes at an intended target.

Fleeing: An active attempt by a person to avoid apprehension by a law enforcement officer through evasive actions while attempting to leave the scene.

Laser painting: The act of unholstering and pointing an ECW at a subject and activating the ECW’s laser dot to show that the weapon is aimed at the subject.

Less-lethal weapon: Any apprehension or restraint tool that, when used as designed and intended, is less likely to cause death or serious injury than a conventional police lethal weapon (e.g., firearm).

Neuromuscular incapacitation: The effect of the ECW on a subject when, through the application of an electrical pulse, the ECW dominates the motor nervous system by interfering with electrical signals sent to the skeletal muscles by the central nervous system.

Passive resistance: Physical actions that do not prevent the officer’s attempt to control, for example, a person who remains in a limp-prone position, passive demonstrators, etc. positional asphyxia. Death that occurs when a subject’s body position interferes with breathing, either when the chest is restricted from expanding properly or when the position of the subject’s head obstructs the airway.

Probe discharge: Pulling the trigger to release the probes from the cartridge to make contact with the subject and achieve neuromuscular incapacitation.

Probe spread: The amount of distance between probes fired from an ECW.

Probes: Projectiles with wires contained in an ECW cartridge. When the ECW is discharged, probes are expelled from the ECW and penetrate the subject’s clothing and/or skin, allowing application of the electric impulse.

Proximity death: The death of a subject following exposure to an ECW.

Sensitive areas: An area of the subject’s body that may cause more serious injury to the subject if struck with an ECW probe (e.g., head, neck, genitalia)

Serious bodily harm: An injury to a person that, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any part or organ of the body, as well as any breaks, fractures, or burns of the third degree.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

When someone you love is the victim of a homicide, you are catapulted into a very small group of mourners. When someone you love is killed by the police, you are dropped into a hole only a handful of others in this country will ever know.

The isolation for families of those killed by police is staggering. None of the normal support systems offered in homicide cases are there because nearly all of them are offered by and through the police.

"We've been feeling alone since the get-go, " says Rob Chinnery. "We are different from any other victims."

On Feb. 2, Rob's 19-year-old son, Andreas, was fatally shot by a Hamilton police officer. The officer was called to Andreas's apartment to deal with a disturbance.

It is unclear if the officer acted properly or not by shooting and killing Andreas. At this point, 10 weeks after the homicide, the province's Special Investigations Unit has still not concluded its investigation nor released any details about what happened.

What is clear is the Chinnery family has not been offered the help other families of homicide victims are afforded.

Two SIU investigators came to Rob's door to notify him of his son's death.

The SIU investigates all police-related deaths, serious injuries and allegations of sexual assault.

Once they are called in.

The normal protocol for a death notification when there is a homicide is Hamilton officers are accompanied by one of three full-time victim services staff members.

A homicide notification is considered such a sensitive and important matter that it is policy for victim services to be involved.

And not a volunteer member - a fully trained staff member. Someone who can spend time with the family, liaise between the family and investigators, guide the family through the legal process, assist with contacting other family and friends, help with funeral arrangements and media inquiries and recommend grief counsellors.

Yet when a police officer is responsible for the homicide, the Hamilton police send no victim services staff.

The SIU did not send a victim services expert to notify Rob. Nor do they in most cases, says the unit's spokesperson Jasbir Brar.

"The lead investigators make notification," she says, adding they have had "sensitivity training."

Underscoring the confusing and sometimes nonsensical relationship between the SIU and Ontario's police services, there is nothing to stop police from providing victim assistance to families involved with the SIU, according to Brar. Yet there are strict rules prohibiting officers from having any contact with the same families.

Brar points out that even if police reach out, a family who has just been told police killed their loved one may not want to accept the offer of support.

Which makes sense. Yet the SIU doesn't fill that gap.

The unit's entire mandate is to investigate allegations involving terrible trauma. Last year it investigated 287 cases, where there are families mourning, possibly victims suffering and sometimes witnesses affected. Yet the SIU has only one "affected persons co-ordinator" to work with victims in the entire province.

Ironically, where does that co-ordinator, Nickie Buchok, work from?

Her home in Hamilton.

So it is conceivable she could have assisted the SIU investigators in notifying Rob of his son's death. But that simply isn't the way things are done.

Since the notification, Rob has spoken with Buchok and asked for counselling. But the SIU only makes referrals.

Rob and his remaining family say they didn't even know what the SIU was before it knocked on their door. Navigating the weeks since Andreas was killed has been frustrating and emotionally exhausting. They have few answers from the SIU - except that it is still waiting on forensic test results before it can conclude its investigation. They feel as if they are in the dark.

"In this case, there's a sense of shame on the family, " says Rob. "We're on our own because this is a homicide committed by police."

Families of homicide victims feel isolated as "their circle of support gets smaller and smaller, " says Bev Wilson, a traumatic bereavement counsellor who leads Hamilton's homicide support group called Lean on Me. "If the homicide is the result of a police shooting, the isolation is instantaneous."

She says the group would welcome the Chinnerys. About 30 people have gone through Lean on Me since it began three years ago. None have lost their loved ones at the hands of police.

"These people are stigmatized, " says Wilson. "People shy away from these families. So the support system is gone. They're in a world they've never been in before."

The stigma is greater when someone is killed by police, Wilson says.

When it comes to support, nothing should matter except that these families are grieving.

Certainly, there are no winners in the incident involving the RCMP Tasering of an 11-year-old aboriginal boy in Prince George last week.

But whatever the outcome of the investigation now being conducted by the West Vancouver Police Department, you can bet that the RCMP, and police forces across the province, will be the big losers.

Although very few details of the incident have been released, the Prince George Mounties have said that two officers responded to a 911 call involving a stabbing last Thursday afternoon.

Upon arriving, they "confirmed a 37-year-old male had been allegedly stabbed by an 11-year-old male."

The man was taken to hospital, and the 11-year-old suspect was found at a nearby property.

The officers tried to get him out of the house, and when he emerged, they Tasered him and took him into custody.

It's not clear if he was in possession of a weapon when he was subdued.

That's not a lot of information to go on, but many people have still expressed concern about the incident.

The concern is understandable given that the death of Robert Dziekanski is still fresh in many people's minds, and given that some officers have used Tasers in highly questionable circumstances, such as the Tasering of an 82-year-old man in his hospital bed in 2008.

Concerns are heightened in this case, however, since this boy is apparently the youngest subject of a Tasering in Canada.

The Tasering of children is something that seems not to even have been contemplated by most police forces, since few have any written policy on the matter.

And the Braidwood inquiry, which investigated the death of Dziekanski and the use of Tasers more generally, made no recommendations regarding Taser use on youth, although it did say that children, due to their small size, could be at increased risk from Tasers.

This is something that was confirmed by cardiologists in the days after the Prince George incident.

It is, therefore, imperative the RCMP and other police forces develop explicit guidelines regarding the use of Tasers on children.

This does not necessarily mean that Tasers should never be used -- one can imagine that Tasering a child might be indicated if the child is brandishing a firearm and all other means of defusing the situation have failed -- but for the sake of both the public and the police, officers do need clear instructions on what is acceptable and what isn't.

However, even if guidelines are developed and investigators conclude that officers adhered to them, many members of the public will remain suspicious as long as police continue to investigate themselves.

So in addition to highlighting the need for proper Taser guidelines, this case highlights, once again, the need for an independent, civilian-led agency to investigate allegations of serious misconduct against the police.

The development of a such an agency was, in fact, among the recommendations of the Braidwood Inquiry, and it was a recommendation that the province promised to implement.

For the sake of the public, and even more so, for the sake of public confidence in the police, Premier Christy Clark should make fulfilling this promise a priority.

It's wrong to jump to conclusions about the RCMP tasering of an 11-year-old boy in Prince George. But it is not too soon to raise concerns -again -about the way the incident is being investigated.

The RCMP has provided almost no information about the incident. It's known the boy was in the care of the Ministry of Children and Families, in a group home. He allegedly stabbed a 37-year-old man and went to a nearby residence. RCMP officers responded. When the boy emerged, an officer tasered him.

All this happened late in the afternoon on Thursday, April 7. But it took three days for officers from the West Vancouver police department to arrive in Prince George and begin investigating.

That's unacceptable. The sooner witnesses are interviewed, the more accurate the information -and the sooner public questions are answered.

The case also highlights the provincial government's failure to act on a key recommendation of the Braidwood inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's Taser death.

Last June, Braidwood called for the creation of an independent unit, staffed by civilians, to investigate policerelated incidents involving death or serious harm.

The government rejected the recommendation, but then attorney general Mike de Jong did commit to having a "civilian-led unit" in place with 12 months.

That's less than Braidwood considered necessary to ensure independent oversight and restore public confidence. But it is better than the approach that served the public so poorly in the deaths of Dziekanski and Majencio Camaso, killed by Saanich police.

Solicitor General Shirley Bond says the commitment will not be met. The unit is now to be in place by the end of the year.

The government professed to have learned from the Braidwood inquiry. Its failure to meet its own deadline on such a critical recommendation raises doubts.

The Tasering of an 11-year-old by a junior RCMP officer in British Columbia has rightfully put the controversial use of these weapons back under public scrutiny.

The RCMP have so far released little information about the April 7 incident in Prince George, other than a brief statement saying the boy was a suspect in the stabbing of a 37-year-old man at a group home. The boy fled to a neighbouring property, where he was found by police and arrested.

"Efforts were made to get the individual out of the house, and when he emerged from the home, a conducted energy weapon was deployed by a member," said the statement.

The officer, who has just 18 months experience, has been placed on administrative leave while the West Vancouver Police Department investigates the case.

The first disappointment is that police are using other police to investigate their conduct more than three years after the Robert Dziekanski tragedy and despite two public inquiries that recommended the establishment of a civilian-based investigative body, modelled on Ontario's Special Investigations Unit.

The lack of information at this stage is perhaps understandable after the Mounties mangled the media response to Dziekanski's death in October 2007 at Vancouver International Airport. RCMP released factually inaccurate information in the early stages of the criminal investigation, and then chose not to correct the inaccuracies.

The report from the internal investigation into the Prince George incident must be made public -the sooner, the better. The incident is another blow to the reputation of the once-proud Canadian institution, with strong criticism coming from high-profile observers.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, B.C.'s representative for children and youth, believes police should never be using Tasers on children.

She'll be conducting her own review into the case, because it's the province's responsibility to ensure the safety of kids in foster care or group homes.

"When we think about this being a very young aboriginal, vulnerable child, 11 years old, living away from home, in a group home, I can't think of a more vulnerable child," she said, adding the boy was assessed in hospital and released back into custody.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP issued a news release saying it too is "closely monitoring the case."

Amnesty International Canada believes this is the youngest person to ever be Tasered by police in Canada.

Central Saanich Police Service is the only force in B.C. to prohibit the use of stun guns on children, the elderly, pregnant women and other vulnerable people.

Ultimately, clear regulations restricting the use of conducted energy weapons on children are needed, and they should be consistent across all police forces in the country.

The use of a Taser on a child should be permitted only in the rarest of circumstances. It should be deployed only if there is an immediate threat to life and after all lesser ways of de-escalating the situation have been exhausted.

VANCOUVER — Mounties who used a Taser on an 11-year-old B.C. boy more than a week ago have yet to be interviewed by officers from an outside police force investigating the incident.

Chief Const. Peter Lepine of the West Vancouver Police Department said investigators first interviewed witnesses to the boy's arrest in Prince George, B.C.

"It may seem that interviewing the officers is a task that should have been included in the first phase of the investigation while the team was in Prince George but there is more work to be done before those interviews can take place," Lepine said.

Lepine said his priority is to conduct a fair, thorough and transparent investigation.

West Vancouver police were asked by RCMP to investigate after the boy was shocked by Mounties April 7.

The Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP has announced it will conduct its own investigation and the children's watchdog in B.C. has said she's leaning toward doing a probe as well because the boy was in government care.

The boy was stunned with a shock weapon after RCMP officers responded to a 911 call that a 37-year-old man had been stabbed at a B.C. Children's Ministry facility.

Police found the 11-year-old suspect at a neighbouring property, and the Taser was deployed during his arrest.

First Nations groups have said an independent body, not another police force, should investigate the RCMP officers' actions.

A public inquiry into the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver's airport after he was jolted with an RCMP Taser resulted in recommendations for an independent civilian-led police watchdog in B.C.

Last June, former solicitor general Mike de Jong promised such a body would be formed within the next 12 months.

According to evidence presented at the Dziekanski inquiry, the boy may be the youngest person ever shocked by a police Taser.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

VANCOUVER — An 11-year-old boy who was shocked by an RCMP Taser was the only child living in a British Columbia residential facility, with two staff members looking after him 24 hours a day.

Darren Harbord, a spokesman with the Ministry of Children and Families, said Tuesday that the child was not living in a group home outside Prince George, B.C., as originally believed.

"The ministry deals with some troubled and vulnerable children and youth and each child's placement is based on their individual needs," he said.

"We can't get into specifics about this child. It depends on a child's needs, essentially, because a lot of children in care are very vulnerable, obviously, and some of them have very high needs."

The child was jolted by a Taser after Mounties responded to a 911 call about a 37-year-old staff member at the facility being stabbed last Thursday.

RCMP have said officers found the boy, the suspect in the stabbing, at a neighbouring property. The conducted energy weapon was deployed after he emerged, during his arrest.

The West Vancouver Police Department is investigating, and Sgt. Paul Skelton said two detectives who arrived in Prince George on Sunday are expected to complete the initial part of their probe there by Wednesday afternoon.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is closely monitoring the case, and Children's watchdog Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has said she is leaning toward doing a probe of what she called a disturbing case.

Aboriginal leaders say they want an independent investigation into the incident because the boy was First Nations, and RCMP have a sometimes troubled relationship with the aboriginal community.

"Shock waves have reverberated through the aboriginal community," said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

"It's absolutely outrageous that the RCMP would Taser an 11-year-old child, no matter what the circumstance is," he said.

Chief Wayne Christian, co-chairman of the First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council in Prince George, said an independent body, not another police department, should be conducting the investigation into the circumstances that led a Mountie to deploy a Taser on the child.

Christian said the case is a test of Premier Christy Clark's "families first" agenda and that the government needs to adopt recommendations from a report by the province's independent children's advocate if she investigates the incident.

"I hope that when the premier talks about families first in British Columbia, it also includes our families," he said.

Doug Kinna, a spokesman for the B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union, said some group homes and facilities for vulnerable children are licensed while others are not.

"We're trying to figure out what happened with this home," he said of the facility where the boy was staying.

"I'm concerned that children could be placed in any setting that does not have the proper checks and balances -- from criminal record checks, to credentialing, to training and supervision," he said.

"Those are all things that are in place in licensed group homes," he said of the homes that hire either BCGEU or Hospital Employees Union workers.

A report released last year by the RCMP public complaints commission suggests that up to now, the youngest person to have been jolted by an RCMP Taser was 13 years old.

Skelton said police are mindful of public criticism.

Turpel-Lafond has said the boy was assessed in hospital and is back in government care.

The Prince George RCMP officer who Tasered an 11-year-old boy last week has been placed on administrative leave, says the West Vancouver police department which has been assigned to investigate the case.

The officer involved has 18 months experience, West Vancouver Police Cpl. Fred Harding said in a press release Tuesday.

The West Vancouver police "operate with the knowledge that there is a public concern with the perception of police investigating police. (West Vancouver Police) Chief Lepine is confident that the officers assigned to the investigation will ensure that as with all West Vancouver Police investigations, the highest levels of integrity and policing standards will be applied," Harding said.

A prominent human rights groups said Monday it is "very troubled" by the case and said federal leadership is needed to ensure the weapon is not used unnecessarily against children.

Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, said strict guidelines are needed to govern the use of Tasers, especially on children, and that alternative and less dangerous methods of enforcement should be exhausted before the device is used by police.

"Police forces should adopt guidelines which prohibit the use of Tasers against children unless there is an immediate threat to life that cannot be dealt with though lesser means," Neve said Monday. "It's a pretty high standard — it's an immediate threat to life, not an immediate threat of harm or injury. That's the only circumstance, in our view, police should even consider resorting to a Taser when dealing with a child.

"It needs to be a consistent guideline applied across the country. What we are often faced with in Canada, because we have a multitude of different policing jurisdictions, is different policing forces being subjected to different standards and regulations. When it comes to something this profoundly important — what kind of weapon is going to be used against a child — it can't come down in the end (to) what municipality and province that child happens to be in. We need to see some real federal leadership here."

The 11-year-old boy was Tasered by police after he was accused of stabbing a 37-year-old man in a group home on April 7. The child was taken to hospital for assessment, while the stabbing victim was brought to hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond — B.C.'s child and youth advocate — is reviewing the case. She said she expects she will launch a formal investigation, noting the youth is an aboriginal living in care and is therefore among the "most vulnerable" youths in B.C.

The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP issued a news release saying it is "closely monitoring the case."

Neve noted that last week's case involves the youngest person that, to Amnesty International's knowledge, has ever been Tasered in Canada. He said any potential police review of the B.C. case "will almost certainly point to a very serious need for much clearer guidelines that determine when and if Tasers will ever be used against children."

The president of the Vancouver Police Union said officers must carefully weigh the use of a conducted energy weapon (CEW) such as a Taser.

"It's generally not something that a police officer would consider doing lightly," Tom Stamatakis said. "We would see using a charged electric weapon against a minor, an elderly person, a pregnant woman or someone with a known medical condition as a higher risk application of that level of force. We would be much more cautious about discharging a CEW in those circumstances."

Stamatakis also said that officers face unique challenges in policing situations involving minors.

"Dealing with youth is challenging for police officers, especially youth that are at risk," he said. "It's not like you're dealing with an adult that's more developed physically and mentally. You're dealing with a child that's still a child, regardless of what they're doing."

Neve said Canada's reputation regarding Taser use isn't the cleanest, tainted by other headline-grabbing cases such as the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski after he was Tasered by Mounties at Vancouver's airport.

"Because of the Robert Dziekanski incident in particular, the world is very much aware of the fact that Canada does not yet have its act together when it comes to ensuring proper regulation of Taser use by police in this country," he said. "This case is almost inevitably going to deepen those concerns, therefore all the more reason why we need to hear very quickly — in a detailed and transparent way from the police — as to how this all transpired."

Nick Bala of Queen's University's faculty of law said that to have a child so young Tasered by police is "unprecedented" in Canada, adding there are "grave concerns" about the situation.

Bala, who has authored several books on youth justice in Canada and a paper on criminal acts by children under the age of 12, said it is difficult to know where the onus lies in the most recent incident, but added the use of a Taser on a child that young would be extreme in most cases.

"We've never had a case like this in Canada when it would have been appropriate," he said. "And unless he had a firearm or possibly was threatening someone with a knife at the moment he was Tasered, it would not be appropriate physically, psychologically or legally."

Bala said until an investigation sheds more light on what actually happened, there will be many unanswered questions, but added the level of risk in Tasering is elevated in a child that young.

He noted the early indicators from last week's case in B.C. do not point to a justified use of a Taser.

"In fairness to the officer, we don't know whether the officer was aware of (the boy's) age ... but even with an adolescent, there are concerns about the use of Tasers," he said. "Officers are required to use reasonable force. There are situations where you have a large, threatening adult where a Taser may be appropriate, but this does not seems to be one of those cases.

"I'm not saying it would never be appropriate, but there would be very grave concerns about the situation and it would take most unusual circumstances to justify and I certainly hope the details of the investigation will be made public in due course."

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

April 12, 2011By Sean Sullivan, The Province; With Files From Postmedia

West Vancouver police say it may be some time before the public learns why a Prince George RCMP officer used a stun gun on an 11-year-old boy last week.

The West Vancouver Police Department has been called in to investigate Thursday's Tasering after Prince George RCMP responded to an emergency call.

"Our chief constable has made this investigation the top priority of his department," WVPD Sgt. Paul Skelton told The Province on Monday. "Our goal is to determine whether the RCMP officer was justified in using this level of force."

Officers at the scene found a 37-year-old man suffering from stab wounds that he said were caused by the boy. Officers located the child at a nearby home, where he was Tasered.

The boy was taken to hospital but did not suffer physical injuries, Skelton said.

Detectives from West Vancouver began their investigation Sunday and expect to wrap up this afternoon.

Skelton said the detectives will also review the RCMP's policy on Tasers, as well as the RCMP officer's record and Taser training.

The Mountie involved has 18 months' experience on the job. He has been placed on administrative duties, Skelton said.

It's not known why the officer used a Taser on the boy. Skelton said police can't divulge that information during their investigation.

The incident touches on two hot-button issues in B.C.: Taser use, and the practise of police investigating other police, both of which Skelton said are being taken into account. "We're sensitive to the public perception of police investigating police," Skelton said. He said the RCMP officers involved are co-operating fully with the detectives.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International Canada weighed in on Monday, saying it is "very troubled" by the incident. "Police forces should adopt guidelines which prohibit the use of Tasers against children unless there is an immediate threat to life that cannot be dealt with through lesser means," secretary-general Alex Neve said.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, B.C.'s child and youth advocate, is reviewing the case. She said she expects she will launch a formal probe of the case, noting the youth is an aboriginal living in care and among the "most vulnerable" group in B.C.

Monday, April 11, 2011

A prominent human rights groups said Monday it is "very troubled" by the recent Tasering of an 11-year-old boy by B.C. Mounties and said federal leadership is needed to ensure the weapon is not used against children in unnecessary circumstances.

Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, says strict guidelines are needed to govern the use of Tasers, especially on children, and that alternative and less dangerous methods of enforcement should be exhausted before the device is used by police.

"Police forces should adopt guidelines which prohibit the use of Tasers against children unless there is an immediate threat to life that cannot be dealt with though lesser means," Neve said Monday. "It's a pretty high standard — it's an immediate threat to life, not an immediate threat of harm or injury. That's the only circumstance, in our view, police should even consider resorting to a Taser when dealing with a child.

"It needs to be a consistent guideline applied across the country. What we are often faced with in Canada, because we have a multitude of different policing jurisdictions, is different policing forces being subjected to different standards and regulations. When it comes to something this profoundly important — what kind of weapon is going to be used against a child — it can't come down in the end what municipality and province that child happens to be in. We need to see some real federal leadership here."

The 11-year-old boy in Prince George, B.C., was Tasered by police after he was accused of stabbing a 37-year-old man in a group home on April 7. The child was taken to hospital for assessment, while the stabbing victim was brought to hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond — B.C.'s child and youth advocate — is reviewing case. She said she expects she will launch a formal investigation of the case, noting the youth is an aboriginal living in care and among the "most vulnerable" group in B.C.

Neve, noting that last week's case involves the youngest person that Amnesty International is aware of to face a Taser in Canada, said any potential police review of the B.C. case "will almost certainly point to a very serious need for much clearer guidelines that determine when and if Tasers will ever be used against children."

The president of the Vancouver Police Union said officers must carefully weigh the use of a conducted energy weapon (CEW) such as a Taser.

"It's generally not something that a police officer would consider doing lightly," Tom Stamatakis said. "We would see using a charged electric weapon against a minor, an elderly person, a pregnant woman or someone with a known medical condition as a higher risk application of that level of force. We would be much more cautious about discharging a CEW in those circumstances."

Stamatakis also said that officers face unique challenges in policing situations involving minors.

"Dealing with youth is challenging for police officers, especially youth that are at risk," he said. "It's not like you're dealing with an adult that's more developed physically and mentally. You're dealing with a child that's still a child, regardless of what they're doing."

Neve said Canada's reputation regarding Taser use isn't the cleanest, with other high-profile cases such as the Taser death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski making international headlines.

"Because of the Robert Dziekanski incident in particular, the world is very much aware of the fact that Canada does not yet have its act together when it comes to ensuring proper regulation of Taser use by police in this country," he said. "This case is almost inevitably going to deepen those concerns, therefore all the more reason why we need to hear very quickly — in a detailed and transparent way from the police — as to how this all transpired."

Nick Bala of Queen's University's faculty of law, said to have a child so young Tasered by police is "unprecedented" in Canada, adding there are "grave concerns" about the situation.

Bala, who has authored several books on youth justice in Canada and a paper on criminal offending by children under the age of 12, said it is difficult to know where the onus lies in the most recent incident, but said the use of a Taser on a child that young would be extreme in most cases.

"We've never had a case like this in Canada when it would have been appropriate," he said. "And unless he had a firearm or possibly was threatening someone with a knife at the moment he was Tasered, it would not be appropriate physically, psychologically or legally."

Bala said until an investigation sheds more light on what actually happened, there will be many unanswered questions, but said the level of risk in Tasering is elevated in a child that young.

He noted the early indicators from last week's case in B.C. do not point to a justified use of a Taser.

"In fairness to the officer, we don't know whether the officer was aware of (the boy's) age . . . but even with an adolescent, there are concerns about the use of Tasers," he said. "Officers are required to use reasonable force. There are situations where you have a large, threatening adult where a Taser may be appropriate, but this does not seems to be one of those cases.

"I'm not saying it would never be appropriate, but there would be very grave concerns about the situation and it would take most unusual circumstances to justify and I certainly hope the details of the investigation will be made public in due course."

Details on the Tasering of an 11-year-old boy at his group home by Prince George RCMP last Thursday are sketchy.

Whoa! Did I say “the Tasering of an 11-year-old boy?” Yup. And the details are sketchy. The boy in question allegedly stabbed a 37-year-old person with a steak knife, and then barricaded himself. I can’t tell from the reports at this point if he still had the knife.

But it wasn’t until he left the house that he was Tasered. The boy’s alleged victim has non-life-threatening injuries, and, as this is written, the condition of the boy isn’t clear. We do know our intrepid Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde is on the case.

Her questions: “Why are we using Tasers on children? Did the police take steps to de-escalate the situation?” Good questions.

How hard can it be to subdue an 11-year-old? Even if he’s spitting like a cornered wolverine, he’s still 11. The RCMP is 138. Advantage RCMP.

In Lakewood, Colo., last week, an eight-year-old boy made international news when he was pepper-sprayed during a violent meltdown. Police chose not to Taser him because it would be too dangerous.

If the RCMP doesn’t know it by now, especially in the wake of the notorious death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver Airport, those things are indeed dangerous. Critics say more than 245 people have died since Tasers were introduced as “non-lethal” alternatives to guns. According to the CBC, 20 of those deaths have occurred in Canada, several of those in B.C. and at least one in Prince George.

But those facts obviously don’t cut a lot of mustard with the RCMP, which apparently can’t bring down an 11-year-old without resorting to its officially authorized thunderbolt. It gets murky when you try to figure out exactly how much voltage ran through the targeted 11-year-old. Depending on the model, it’s anywhere from 1,500 to 50,000 volts. At least as bad as getting zapped by a toaster or an electrical outlet, and anyone who has been blown across the room by sticking a screwdriver where it shouldn’t go can.

By now, we shouldn’t be surprised by violence from children; this kid’s behaviour obviously required caution. What it did not require and will never require, was electrocution, even of the “non-lethal” variety.

The RCMP has changed its guidelines for using Tasers in the wake of the Dziekanski affair. Maybe the officer who Tasered the kid didn’t get the memo, but whatever happened, it’s time to take 11-year-olds out of the line of fire.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The case of an 11-year-old boy who was stunned with an RCMP taser in British Columbia is yet another reminder that police shouldn't be investigating themselves, says the head of a wide-ranging public inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski.

The Mounties have asked West Vancouver police to investigate what happened when the boy was jolted with a taser in Prince George last Thursday.

The RCMP said the boy was considered a suspect in the stabbing of 37-year-old man, although neither the Mounties nor the West Vancouver police have explained what prompted an officer to fire the taser, what other options were used first, or whether the boy was holding a weapon when he was stunned.

Former appeal court judge Thomas Braidwood, who oversaw two sets of public hearings following Dziekanski's 2007 death at Vancouver's airport, said the case underscores his call for a civilian-led body to investigate the conduct of police.

“The most significant and important weapon the arsenal of any police force is public support, and the way to get public support is to have an independent body investigate situations like that,” Mr. Braidwood said in an interview Sunday.

“If the other tribunal is not in place, then I can see that [calling in the West Vancouver police] is the way it would have to be, but I don't agree that is the correct solution, because there is a camaraderie and other matters that exist between police forces – and indeed, so there should be, they have to support each other – so it doesn't quite go far enough.”

Mr. Braidwood was appointed to examine what happened when four RCMP officers confronted Mr. Dziekanski – a Polish immigrant who was agitated, confused and didn't speak English – at Vancouver's airport in October, 2007. Within seconds of their arrival, the officers stunned Mr. Dziekanski multiple times with a taser, and he died shortly after.

Mr. Braidwood first conducted hearings into the broad issues surrounding taser use, and later examined Mr. Dziekanski's death in detail.

In his report into Mr. Dziekanski's death, he called on the B.C. government to create an independent body to investigate cases involving police conduct, similar to agencies in place in Ontario and Alberta.

The provincial government has since pledged to create such a body and the RCMP has promised to use it in cases involving its own officers, but it has so far not materialized.

Mr. Braidwood said he's still confident the province will follow through.

“They accepted all of the recommendations, so I'm very pleased with them about that,” said Mr. Braidwood. “I just wish they'd hurry up.”

Mr. Braidwood declined to comment about the specifics of the Prince George case.

While his reports didn't make any recommendations about the use of tasers on youth, one of them said children, because of their small size, could be at an elevated risk from a taser jolt.

Mr. Braidwood's 2009 report on taser use in B.C. also concluded a taser jolt can be deadly in certain rare cases, and called for tighter restrictions on their use. That finding prompted Taser International to challenge Mr. Braidwood's findings in court, but a judge ruled against the company.

The document noted only two police forces in the province – Victoria and Saanich – had policies advising offers to avoid using tasers on “very young” suspects, though that term wasn't defined. The RCMP did not have such a policy when Mr. Braidwood issued his report, and no one from the force was available to comment Sunday about whether that's changed.

A separate report released last year by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP identified 194 cases between 2002 and 2009 in which the force deployed tasers on subjects aged 13 to 17, including two 13-year-olds. None were as young as 11.

As for the incident in Prince George, Simon Fraser University criminologist David MacAlister said the “extremely young age” of the boy adds to the questions the investigation must answer – especially to address the public controversy it has already generated.

“To hear that somebody as young as 11 was on the receiving end of a big jolt came as a bit of a surprise,” said Mr. MacAlister, who stressed it was impossible to make any conclusions about the officers' conduct without knowing exactly what happened.

“What were the police thinking? What alternative responses were they contemplating? You have to wonder what happened in the situation to merit the use of a taser.”

B.C.’s representative for children and youth is considering launching her own investigation.

The case of an 11-year-old boy who was stunned with an RCMP Taser in British Columbia is yet another reminder that police shouldn't be investigating themselves, says the head of a wide-ranging public inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski.

The Mounties have asked West Vancouver police to investigate what happened when the boy was jolted with a Taser in Prince George last Thursday.

The RCMP said the boy was considered a suspect in the stabbing of 37-year-old man, although neither the Mounties nor the West Vancouver police have explained what prompted an officer to fire the Taser, what other options were used first, or whether the boy was holding a weapon when he was stunned.

Former appeal court justice Thomas Braidwood, who oversaw two sets of public hearings following Dziekanski's 2007 death at Vancouver's airport, said the case underscores his call for a civilian-led body to investigate the conduct of police.

"The most significant and important weapon the arsenal of any police force is public support, and the way to get public support is to have an independent body investigate situations like that," Braidwood told The Canadian Press in an interview Sunday.

"If the other tribunal is not in place, then I can see that (calling in the West Vancouver police) is the way it would have to be, but I don't agree that is the correct solution, because there is a camaraderie and other matters that exist between police forces -- and indeed, so there should be, they have to support each other -- so it doesn't quite go far enough."

Braidwood was appointed to examine what happened when four RCMP officers confronted Dziekanski -- a Polish immigrant who was agitated, confused and didn't speak English -- at Vancouver's airport in October 2007. Within seconds of their arrival, the officers stunned Dziekanski multiple times with a Taser, and he died shortly after.

Braidwood first conducted hearings into the broad issues surrounding Taser use, and later examined Dziekanski's death in detail.

In his report into Dziekanski's death, he called on the B.C. government to create an independent body to investigate cases involving police conduct, similar to agencies in place in Ontario and Alberta.

The provincial government has since pledged to create such a body and the RCMP has promised to use it in cases involving its own officers, but it has so far not materialized.

Braidwood said he's still confident the province will follow through.

"They accepted all of the recommendations, so I'm very pleased with them about that," said Braidwood. "I just wish they'd hurry up."

Braidwood declined to comment about the specifics of the Prince George case.

While his reports didn't make any recommendations about the use of Tasers on youth, one of them said children, because of their small size, could be at an elevated risk from a Taser jolt.

Braidwood's 2009 report on Taser use in B.C. also concluded a Taser jolt can be deadly in certain rare cases, and called for tighter restrictions on their use. That finding prompted Taser International to challenge Braidwood's findings in court, but a judge ruled against the company.

The document noted only two police forces in the province -- Victoria and Saanich -- had policies advising offers to avoid using Tasers on "very young" suspects, though that term wasn't defined. The RCMP did not have such a policy when Braidwood issued his report, and no one from the force was available to comment Sunday about whether that's changed.

A separate report released last year by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP identified 194 cases between 2002 and 2009 in which the force deployed Tasers on subjects aged 13 to 17, including two 13-year-olds. None were as young as 11.

As for the incident in Prince George, Simon Fraser University criminologist David MacAlister said the "extremely young age" of the boy adds to the questions the investigation must answer -- especially to address the public controversy it has already generated.

"To hear that somebody as young as 11 was on the receiving end of a big jolt came as a bit of a surprise," said MacAlister, who stressed it was impossible to make any conclusions about the officers' conduct without knowing exactly what happened.

"What were the police thinking? What alternative responses were they contemplating? You have to wonder what happened in the situation to merit the use of a Taser."

B.C.'s representative for children and youth is considering launching her own investigation.

B.C.'s Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, is launching her own investigation into why Prince George RCMP used a Taser on an 11-yearold boy who was the suspect in a stabbing at a group home.

"The circumstances, as I understand them at this point, are distressing," Turpel-Lafond told The Province Saturday.

"Why are we using Tasers on chilren? Did the police take steps to descalate the situation?"

Supt. Brenda Butterworth-Carr, the commanding officer of the RCMP Prince George detachment, confirmed the child was hit with Taser as he emerged from a neighbouring property from where the attack took place Thursday.

Turpel-Lafond said she wants to know why the boy was in a group home in the first place.

"I'm alarmed," she added. "There are some very hard issues that this raises. Why did it get to this point and what initiatives were taken to support this child?"

Mounties responded to a 911 call that reported a stabbing at 5: 30 p.m. Thursday.

"Police confirmed that a 37-year old male had been allegedly stabbed by an 11-year-old male and the victim was enroute to hospital for medical care," said Butterworth-Carr.

"Members began to search for the suspect and he was located at a nearby neighbouring property. Efforts were made to get the individual out of the house and, when he emerged from the home, a conducted energy weapon was deployed by a member."

The 11-year-old was taken into custody and transported to hospital for assessment, she said.

The victim was in hospital in good condition with non-life-threatening injuries, said Butterworth-Carr.

She said she didn't know the status of the 11-year-old and referred questions to West Vancouver police, who are conducting an independent investigation into the incident.

News reports said the boy barricaded himself in a Giscome Road group home after stabbing an employee with a steak knife.

Saturday, April 09, 2011

What the hell?!? According to RCMP policy on CEW deployment, the taser may only be used when: "a subject is causing bodily harm, or the member believes on reasonable grounds, that the subject will imminently cause bodily harm." This little boy, according to reports, was "emerging from the home."

April 9, 2011Andrea Woo, Vancouver Sun

Mounties in Prince George fired a Taser on an 11-year-old boy who was suspected of stabbing a 37-year-old man on Thursday.

The incident began around 5:30 p.m. when Prince George RCMP received a report of a stabbing at a home, according to a written statement issued Thursday afternoon by Prince George detachment commander Supt. Brenda Butterworth-Carr.

Attending officers received information that the boy had allegedly stabbed the adult male, who was then en route to hospital. Police began a search for the boy and found him at a neighbouring property.

"Efforts were made to get the individual out of the house, and when he emerged from the home, a conducted energy weapon was deployed by a member," Butterworth-Carr said.

"The male was taken into custody and transported to hospital for assessment."

The West Vancouver Police Department is now investigating the matter. Prince George RCMP did not disclose the boy's relationship to the stabbing victim.

Friday, April 08, 2011

Officers under investigation in incidents of serious injury or death must not communicate with each other or share a lawyer, former chief justice Patrick LeSage has recommended.

LeSage issued a three-page report Thursday after a 15-month review of relations between police and the Special Investigations Unit, which probes such incidents.

The review was triggered when Ian Scott, director of the civilian watchdog agency, criticized Ontario’s police forces and unions for allowing officers to collude and conceal incriminating evidence in criminal investigations.

Speaking to reporters at Queen’s Park, LeSage said he hoped his review will address concerns that the system is failing.

“I think it will perhaps at least put aside some of the suspicions that I have heard that have occurred in the past,” he said.

Attorney General Chris Bentley said he was happy with LeSage’s “clear, simple and direct” recommendations, which will strengthen public confidence in the SIU. Bentley said he will act on the recommendations as quickly as possible.

“Are we going to move?” he said. “Yes.”

A recent Star investigation found that police officers across Ontario are treated differently than civilians when accused of seriously injuring or killing a person. In some cases, the SIU was unable to properly investigate.

The Star found examples of officers being allowed to delay writing notes and of sharing lawyers while involved in the same SIU review. It also highlighted concerns that officers were collaborating on stories to prevent the SIU from learning the truth.

The LeSage review addressed all these points.

He recommends officers involved in an incident, either as a witness or subject, cannot communicate with each other until the SIU probe is finished.

Officers who are witnesses in an SIU investigation cannot share a lawyer with the officer under review. And officers’ notes are to be completed at the end of a shift, unless otherwise excused by the chief.

LeSage also reminded lawyers who represent more than one officer not to share client information.

The recommendations apply to police services across Ontario, which operate under different rules and regulations. LeSage called on the province to review the legislation and regulations governing the SIU and its relationship with police within two years.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said all LeSage’s recommendations are consistent with current force policy.

“I don’t see that any of it results in any significant change in the way we have been doing business,” Blair said.

However, opposition parties were quick to voice concerns with the review.

LeSage fails to address the issue of who police officers’ notes belong to and how they are handled, said Conservative justice critic Ted Chudleigh.

“A number of questions about that need some answers, and I didn’t see any answers coming out,” he said.

The report also omitted the issue of compelling officers to cooperate with an SIU investigation, said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.

In September 2009, Scott announced he was unable to decide if an OPP officer was guilty of wrongdoing in the shooting death of Levi Schaeffer, a 30-year-old schizophrenic man from Peterborough. The officer and his partner were the only witnesses.

Scott said the officers had their notes vetted by a police union lawyer before submitting them to the SIU. His public comments sparked tension between the SIU and police unions.

Last January, the attorney general’s office appointed LeSage to conduct his review.

The fatality inquiry into the death of a man who died shortly after his arrest by Calgary police will focus on “excited delirium,” the judge hearing the case said Thursday.

But the family of Castlegar, B.C. resident Gordon Walker Bowe said they don’t accept the drug-induced syndrome is what caused his death.

Widow Zoya Chernenkoff and her father, John, will be in attendance when the inquiry begins June 13 into Bowe’s Nov. 2, 2008 death following his arrest.

“I seen Gord when he was hooked up to life support in the hospital,” the man’s father-in-law told the Sun from his B.C. home.

John Chernenkoff said Bowe’s neck was swollen, leading him to believe police had knelt on him to subdue him, cutting off oxygen to his brain.

“It’s obvious he received a heck of a beating,” he said.

“That’s what caused the circulation to his brain to be cut off and that’s what caused his death,” he suggested.

Calgary provincial court Judge Heather Lamoureux told a pre-inquiry conference with lawyers handling the case she wants the hearing to centre on police and paramedic training in dealing with excited delirium cases.

“I think the focus is to see exactly what the police are doing now (in terms of education) ... and what the current education is for paramedics on what excited delirium is,” Lamoureux said.

“Paramedics are the first responders” in most cases, she said.

In August, 2009, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) released findings that exonerated police in Bowe’s death, saying it was a result of excited delirium syndrome, due to, or as a consequence of cocaine toxicity.

ASIRT said at the time police attempted to Taser Bowe, 30, to subdue him after finding him in a vacant house under construction in the 500 block of 42 St. S.E., but the device didn’t deploy.

Among the witnesses Lamoureux will hear from is someone from Taser International, which will have counsel representing it at the inquiry.

The judge also wants to hear expert evidence about excited delirium, the results of the ASIRT investigation and the medical examiner’s findings.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

A concerned Canadian wrote a very interesting comment on the news reports that follows below. Here's the Canadian's take on the matter:

As you reported in "Bain's Incustody Death Due To Meth", there can be no doubt the drug played a part, but to rule out the multi-stuns of the Taser as possible contributing factor, shows just how ignorant or biased this "medical expert" is. Taser shocks, especially when repeated or prolonged can cause cardiac arhythmias BUT can also lead to life-threatening metabolic acidosis.

In the only successful product liability case against Taser (Heston Vs. TI) two years ago, lawyer John Burton argued successfully that the company's scientists never tested for possible changes to blood chemistry caused by Taser shocks. The Six-Million dollar judgement is on appeal, but the point was made: Tasers can cause acidosis. Please realise Tasers cause muscle strands to twitch uncontrollably. This results in an unnatural surge of lactic acid throughout the blood stream. The acid/base balance in the blood is extremely narrow. If your PH falls fast and far enough, it can cause the muscles around the heart to cease operation, with often deadly effect.

Taser International has acknowledged this, albeit in the fine-print of the latest Training Bulletin # 17 issued quietly last May, for company insiders, Taser trainers and anyone willing to take the 40-minutes needed to download the bulletin from the company's website. Every police officer, share-holder, investor, insurer and government official who sanctions the use of Tasers should read the very long list of risks and warnings, including that of acidosis caused by Taser stuns.

A decade ago when ECDs began flooding the market, everyone was reassured by the manufacturers and the police that these new electrical devices were "safe to use on any assailant" and were "non-lethal". Within several years, especially after the related death toll began to climb, the wording was changed to "less than lethal". Somehow now, after 537 deaths in North America, proximal to Taser use, the language used to describe the devices has changed again to LETHAL. This was the conclusion of the Braidwood Inquiry in Canada. And now in the fine print, ostensibly to reduce the sting of future liabilites, Taser International is admitting the same thing-- Tasers can KILL. This is not what we were all told a decade ago. Did human physiology somehow change in the last ten years, making Tasers more deadly? Or was there a distinct lack of science applied to ensure the weapons were as safe as advertised?

And before a definitive cause of death is decided in the Bains case, the medical examiner should have the Taser involved tested independently, to ensure there is no 'output variance', because as we discovered in Canada, not all Tasers perform the same way. Eighty percent of the older model tasers tested in BC failed, after being sent to the one lab in the country equipped for such tests; eighty percent of the weapons had outputs outside of the safety allowables set by the manufacturer. Those older M26 models were pulled from service, coast-to-coast. Since there is no way of testing Tasers regularly in any police detachment in North America, how do your police or ME know for sure, if they have a defective Taser on their hands or not?

Concerned Canadian,Vancouver, BC.

April 7, 2011KRTV.com (Montana)

A coroner's inquest in Billings has determined that the death of Ryan Bain was not a crime.

The jury determined that Bain's death was caused by methamphetamine use.

The coroner's inquest was investigating the death of Bain after he was Tased multiple times and died later in custody.

On October 10, 2010, law enforcement authorities say Bain was seen running naked down the street and stole a van. Officers eventually caught up to him and tried to take him into custody. Officers believed he was under the influence of drugs and say he was non-compliant.

Bain was Tased multiple times and taken to YCDF where authorities say he refused to cooperate and was Tased again. He was placed in a holding cell and a short time later suffered cardiac arrest.

During the second day of the inquest, two medical doctors testifying in the inquest into Ryan Bain's death said that his death appeared to be the result of a methamphetamine overdose and not the direct result of being tasered.

A large amount of medical testimony was presented at day two of the inquest.

American Medical Rescue paramedic Robyn Harper testified saying when she arrived, Bain was essentially dead. Harper called St. Vincent Healthcare emergency room Dr. Sheldon Nelson. After 21 minutes of working on Bain, Dr. Nelson told medics they could stop CPR efforts. That was at 12:19 am. Seconds later, Harper was unplugging a monitor and was "surprised" to see that Bain had a pulse. They took to the emergency room.

St. Vincent Emergency Doctor Sheldon Nelson treated Bain when he arrived at he hospital. He told the jury there is no specific treatment plan for someone who is has taken methamphetamine and that it just has "to wear off." Dr. Nelson said Bain was comatose the entire time he saw him. However his heart rate was up, but that his blood pressure was adequate to extremely low. Bain had multiple medical test done. Dr. Nelson said he believes Bain's death was the cause of an "extremely significant overdose of meth."

Dr. Kristin Spanjian, an intensivist who oversees care at the Intensive Care Unit at St. Vincent's testified by video. The interview was conducted March 17. Dr. Spanjian says the cardiac arrest was due to "acute methamphetamine intoxication." She said the taser likely did not play a role in his death because he would have suffered cardiac arrest shortly after the incident.She went on to explain that people with severe acute meth intoxication display signs of severe acidosis, which is increased acidity in the blood. Bain had a ph of 6.9. The normal ph level is a 7.4. She said some of the factors leading to his cardiac arrest were the acidosis, the chemical reaction in his body and dehydration.

Bain's former fiancee Kalli Ackerman took the stand saying she lost contact with Bain for 45 minutes on October 10, 2010. When she saw him again at her father's house, he appeared to be fine at first and then quickly did not make sense and was hot to the touch. She tried taking him to the hospital, but Bain's mental state quickly changed and he did not recognize her and appeared to be afraid of her. She said she was begging him to get help when he took off running down an alley. That was the last time she saw Bain alive.

We're on Twitter!

taser-Related Deaths = 1043+ in North America

See "A LIST OF THE DEAD"According to Taser International, the taser had nothing to do with any of these deaths. According to a Reuters investigation, Shock Tactics - Part 1 - The Toll, published on August 22, 2017, more than 150 autopsy reports have cited tasers as the cause or contributor to deaths across the U.S. That number may be higher; however medical examiners and coroners are often not impartial but are instead biased in favour of the Crown or, as has been shown, they are under tremendous pressure from - among others - Taser International, to make a particular finding.See Judge rules for Taser in cause-of-death decisions

Search This Blog

Taser International finally admits risk that their weapons may affect the human heart

RCMP - TASERS POTENTIALLY LETHAL

EDITORIALS

NAVIGATING THIS SITE

This blog, which contains more than 3,000 posts, is broken down into 50 posts per page. When you reach the bottom of the last post on a page, click on "Older Posts" to see earlier posts, chronologically.

To return to the main page (and the NEWEST post) at any time, click here.

To see all posts on a specific topic, please see the "Categories of Interest" list below. To search for a specific name, word or term, use the "Search This Blog" feature at the top of this column, powered by Google.

My Brother - Robert Bagnell June 27, 1959 - June 23, 2004

to contact us

If you wish to contact us, please leave a message ("private" or otherwise) on the guestbook (see below), including your e-mail address.

2) Until such time as independent and unbiased study into the "real world" safety implications of Tasers has been properly completed, a moratorium must be imposed upon these weapons.

3) If, after independent and unbiased study has been completed, the Taser is going to remain in the police arsenal, it must be placed at a level equal to lethal force on the continuum of force and used only as a second-to-last resort.

4) Safety standards must be developed for Tasers. There are currently no Canadian safety standards in place for this weapon.

5) Police must not be allowed to investigate themselves but must be subject to independent and unbiased civilian oversight.

6) Families of people who die in police custody in Canada must be provided with funding so that they may be properly represented by legal counsel.

07. Robert Bagnell, 44 – Vancouver, BC - June 23, 2004 - X26 - "Official" cause of death: Consistent with restraint-associated cardiac arrest due to acute cocaine intoxication and psychosis. Bob's autopsy report showed marks on his body consistent to multiple taser shots, which incidently could not be affirmed by the pathologist because she could not explain those marks.

09. Samuel Truscott, 43 – Kingston, ON - August 8, 2004 - X26 - "Official" cause of death: Heart attack cause by drug overdose and "I can state categorically that the Taser did not play any role whatsoever in his death" said Chief Coroner for Ontario, Jim Cairns

24. Michael Langan, 17, Winnipeg, MB - July 22, 2008 - tasered 1 time - the autopsy report says Langan's death was caused by a heart arrhythmia brought on by the Taser shocks

25. Sean Reilly, 42 - Brampton, ON - September 17, 2008 - Peel Regional Police - X26 - tasered 2 times - the inquest jury will determine the official cause of death, however, “the forensic evidence indicated that the force used by the officers, including the Taser discharge, did not contribute to his death"

27. Trevor Grimolfson, 38 - Edmonton, AB - October 29, 2008, X26 - According to sources, after he was pepper sprayed, Trevor was tasered directly on the chest 5 times and tasered on the back of the neck 2 more times - Edmonton police said he was only tasered 2 times but testing on the tasers proves otherwise - "Official" cause of death: excited delirium brought on by drugs

29. Grant William Prentice, 40 - Brooks, AB - May 6, 2009 - RCMP - tasered 2 times - "Official" cause of death: acute cocaine toxicity and "the medical examiner also concluded the taser did not play a role in the death"

Ain't it the truth!

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

80% percent of the population could be moved in either direction

Human rights activist Susan Sontag, when asked what she had learned from the Holocaust, said that 10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80 percent could be moved in either direction.

THE Successes AREN'T the Problem

"The issue is not whether or not the taser can be used in a high percentage of cases to reduce death and/or physical trauma to officers and civilians alike. The issue is whether or not it's OK to kill the rest through ignorance and rationalization just because it's a small percentage ... The successes aren't the problem - the failures are. They're being told that tasers are nonlethal, so they blast away until people can't move. They're killing people by accident." Dave Siegler, father of Raymond Siegler, who died on February 12, 2004

The artistic side of Robert Bagnell

WE KNOW THIS MUCH IS TRUE

ROBERT ANGLEN

Robert Anglen, a reporter with The Arizona Republic, documented the first 167 Taser-related deaths. Mr. Anglen launched a journalistic investigation of Taser International, linking the Taser to multiple deaths, among other eye-openers.

At the 2005 Arizona Press Club Awards, Mr. Anglen won first place in the Investigative reporting category. He was the recipient of the Don Bolles Award for his report entitled "Taser tied to 'independent' study that backs stun gun'. “As part of an extraordinarily thorough investigation of Taser International, Anglen uncovered ‘smoking gun’ documents that showed the manufacturer was heavily involved in the key study that purported the devices are safe. Anglen also uncovered conflicts of interest and documented wide-spread problems with Taser safety — a matter of national and international public interest.”

In 2006, Mr. Anglen was a runner up for the Arizona Press Club's Virg Hill Journalist of the Year award. Peter Bhatia of The Oregonian wrote “Robert Anglen is an investigative reporter, pure and simple. Clearly, he is a reporter who, once he sinks his teeth into something, stays with it until the story is done. His ongoing work around the company that makes Tasers speaks to that."